Unearthed Arcana Revived, Noble Genie and Archivist Revisited in UA

The latest Unearthed Arcana replaces the Revived, Noble Genie, and Archivist subclasses with new versions called the Phantom, the Genie, and the Order of Scribes.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm not a fan of that (level 14) ability, on the basis of the lost spells being a pain to keep track of. But it's a high level ability so is unlikely to actually crop up. I could actually see it becoming a running joke, with the wizard constantly dying in ridiculous accidents.

I agree. This ability needs to go. It isn't good, and you don't want to use it. It's a pain to keep track of the spells you can't cast, and just overall a crappy ability.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Not completely true. In the DMG, you're encouraged to use Death Clerics and Oathbreakers Paladins as villains.

And I personally feel that if a monster is classified as a "X level spellcaster", giving it class features up to that level makes sense.

Like a Lich is an 18th level wizard, giving it some Wizard class features would prolly help it be effective, not that a lich really needs help being effective.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And I personally feel that if a monster is classified as a "X level spellcaster", giving it class features up to that level makes sense.

If they did that, every humanoid NPC stat block in 5e would become at least twice the size.

 

[TwoSix]

Now, you don't have to run in that way. This time around WotC tried to accomodate multiple perspectives. So they present a world where classes and subclasses can be something in the world that NPCs have, but they give us simplified NPC statblocks so you don't have to build them yourself and use all the rules. And then they let us decide what is true in our own world with those toys.

I agree that classes and subclasses being extant in the setting is a valid perspective (not my perspective, but I recognize its validity.) However, I would argue that doesn't mean that every subclass ability has a requirement to be feasible for NPCs in order to be published for PCs. If you're set on making a factional home and organization for every subclass, then you might simply have to exclude a few subclasses as being non-feasible for that approach.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No reason for this one to be non-feasible though. It has a pretty minimal impact and if it becomes a plot point that the party wizard and the enemy wizard are doing a Sherlock and Moriarty routine, then that could be really fun.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If they did that, every humanoid NPC stat block in 5e would become at least twice the size.

3E monsters say hey, and they miss you.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

3E monsters say hey, and they miss you.

I never played 3e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

3E monsters say hey, and they miss you.

I, for one, don't miss them.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Why that though? If the DM decides a hostile spell caster is an illusionist, or a diviner, or whatever, they must have a story reason for making them that. There are lots of wizard specialisms, the chances of encountering any specific type of wizard are statistically low.

Yeah, you're right, there would have to be a reason. If they managed to make this subclass workable as a "generalist mage" then a pretty good reason in my settings would just be that generalists are really common so they'd be one by default if none of the school specialties (or other options I might use) made sense.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

If they did that, every humanoid NPC stat block in 5e would become at least twice the size.

Which is why they didn't put it there by default.